RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. PRABHA KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is at the instance of the tenant, who has through concurrent orders been directed to be evicted from the premises. The petition had been filed at the instance of the petitioner's husband seeking ejectment on the ground of personal necessity for establishing his own business. The husband died and the wife substituted herself as a party giving out the same reason that she required the property for her personal need for establishing business. Although the nature of business was not disclosed in the petition, she explained in the course of evidence that she was planning to set up a saree showroom. The Rent Controller found the need as established and the Appellate Authority affirmed the same. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that in the petition, the landlord had not stated that the property was necessary not only for himself but also for the members of the family. The requirement has originally not, therefore, pleaded for any member of the family, the wife could not have impleaded herself as party to set up her need. I will not find this argument as acceptable, for if the petition were to have been dismissed on his death and the petition still could have been filed by the wife if that property was necessary for her business. If the husband had filed the petition stating that he required the property for his business and the wife wants to carry on with the idea after his death, it is fair enough that she was directed to be impleaded as party, obtained an amendment in the pleading and prosecuted the case. In fact, that is how the case has piloted itself over a period of time, that is after the death of the landlord on 07.12.2003 when the wife has impleaded herself as party and has brought out the amendment on 12.05.2004 and the case was prosecuted further. I would, therefore, find the objection that the petition had not spelt out need of the member of the family and therefore, the case could not have been prosecuted at the instance of the wife by setting up her need cannot be accepted.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel has further objection that the petitioner was trying to manipulate documents to make it appear as though that she was not having any other business and therefore, she wanted the property for establishing a new business. It is with particular reference to two businesses both of which were held in partnership, one during the life time of her husband where she had a fractional share in the partnership and another was a business where her husband was a partner and after his death, firm was reconstituted and she was inducted as partner but later she relinquished. The learned Senior Counsel would contend of the two partnerships, one was in cloth business and another in jewellery business. The documents that had been brought about were really manipulated and there was intrinsic evidence that showed that even her husband's brother or brother's children were actively associated and the business still continued and she herself has interest in such business. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out to the fact that the son of her husband's brother was also examined on her own side and if there had been a stand off between the members of the family, she could not have even cited that person as witness on her side. I will not find this argument to be tenable, for the bona fide need to start a business need not be expressed only by forsaking every interest in any other business that she may be carrying on. A growth in the society itself happens only by gradual improvement of the existing state of business and it will be impracticable to think that a person can make only a linear growth in one business or shall have a new business only, if he forsakes his interest in some other business. If the Courts below have considered the evidence in the light of what the lady stated that she was going to start business and she had necessary resources to start one, I find hardly any reason to suspect the bona fide need. The orders of eviction by the Court below are maintained and the revision petition is dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the tenant has been running business for several years and he will be greatly prejudiced if he is to be thrown out. The petitioner will have a time for eviction for six months. He will be liable to pay the rent at the same rate at which he was paying and within the time already stipulated. If there is any default in the payment of rent during the period when he is allowed to continue, the benefit of the period provided under this order shall stand immediately withdrawn and the landlord will be entitled to apply for ejectment forthwith.